With that, we reach the point of the Abraham narrative in
which circumcision, as a covenant marker, is introduced. As we listen to
the words of God to come, we can think back through the Abraham story, and realize
just how long it has been (both in terms of the text of Scripture and the
passage of time) since God has first called Abraham to Himself and for Himself,
to be His light to the nations (chapter 12). In verse nine of the
seventeenth chapter of Genesis we read “Then God said to Abraham, ‘As for you,
you must keep the covenantal requirement I am imposing on you and your
descendants after you throughout their generations. This is My
requirement that you and your descendants after you must keep: Every male among
you must be circumcised. You must circumcise the flesh of your
foreskins.’” (17:9-11a)
Well this pretty much clinches the argument for those that
insist that circumcision must be undergone for entrance upon the covenant (for
justification), so Gentile believers need to line-up to undergo the procedure
as did Abraham. Putting aside that Paul does speak of the circumcision of
the heart (with a reminder that he is not the one that comes up with that idea –
that would be the Hebrew prophets), we need to take into account the fact that
this is the point at which circumcision is finally introduced to Abraham.
Are we to presume that Abraham, up until this point (actually, shortly
thereafter, when the circumcision is performed) Abraham has, in fact, not been
in covenant with God (not righteous, not justified, not in right standing, not
“saved”)? Of course not. Such a proposition would be
ludicrous. We could not suggest such a thing for even a moment.
However, with what follows, this idea gains traction.
We read “Throughout your generations every male among you who is eight days old
must be circumcised, whether born in your house or bought with money from any
foreigner who is not one of your descendants. They must indeed be
circumcised, whether born in your house or bought with money… Any uncircumcised
male who has not been circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin will be cut off
from his people---he has failed to carry out My requirement”
(17:12-13a,14). Clearly, this is difficult to square with Paul’s
position. The language has not changed. We are still hearing about
descendants. This includes the “nations” of which we have heard so
much. It seems rather straightforward, and if we are listening to Paul
with the story of Abraham in mind, as this story is crucial for the
comprehension of the extension of God’s covenant and its associated justifying,
then those that insist on circumcision as crucial for entrance upon the
covenant must win the day.
Is that what is being presented? Well, in a word,
no. We are not looking at circumcision as that which allows Abraham, or
anyone else for that matter, to be counted among those justified (those looked
upon as being righteous). For Abraham, the circumcision is the mark of
God’s covenant. It did not bring Abraham
into covenant. Naturally, at that time, there is no Jesus. There
has been no crucifixion. More importantly, there has been no
Resurrection. That’s significant, because the Resurrection changed
everything. For Paul, it marked the beginning of the new creation.
For Paul, it is the Resurrection that allows for the circumcision of the
heart. It is the Resurrection (as the culmination and summation of the
Christ-event) that marks the beginning of the fulfillment of the promise to
Abraham concerning the multitude of nations (that have filled the earth) that
are his descendants.
Conversely then, not only does the Resurrection begin the
process of truly encompassing all nations under the covenant tent (thinking of
Isaiah and the lengthening of stakes), but it is the Resurrection and its
associated proclamation of Jesus as Lord that begins to create a people and a
kingdom that subsumes distinct peoples and nations, creating a new nation of
covenant people whose features, in imitation of Christ as the quintessential
human being, supersedes all other heretofore recognized distinctions.
This is yet another reason that, for Paul, circumcision and its related
covenant markers fall by the wayside. Besides, if we, from our point of
view on Paul, looking at the situation from a position thousands of years
removed, entertain the necessity of circumcision because of what is to be found
in Genesis seventeen, then we must jettison Paul and deny the influence of
God’s Spirit upon him as he took the message of the Gospel into the Gentile
world. We are probably not going to be willing to do such a thing, though
there were many in his day that were happy to do precisely that.
At the same time, the astute reader would have noticed that,
in the recounting of the selected passage from Genesis seventeen that has to do
with circumcision and its requirement, some statements were omitted. Those
statements were “This will be a reminder of the covenant between Me and you”
(17:11b) and “The sign of My covenant will be visible in your flesh as a
permanent reminder” (17:13b). The mark of the covenant was to be a
reminder of the covenant standing. It did not provide the standing.
What provided the covenant standing (righteousness, justification, salvation)
was belief. True for Abraham, true for all. Circumcision did not
convey righteousness (justification, covenant inclusion) upon Abraham.
Similarly, simply uttering the words “Jesus is Lord” (if there has been no
circumcision of the heart, and putting aside any plucking of out of context
proof-texts from a letter to Corinth), if there is no belief in the God that is
at work in Jesus, does not convey righteousness (covenant standing,
justification, salvation). However, considering that, historically,
saying “Jesus is Lord” did and does not exactly earn one any special favors or
privileges, with this being ever so true in Paul’s day, Paul would find it hard
to believe that anyone would say “Jesus is Lord” without it being a core
belief. For this reason then, the words, as they belie a believing
response of faith and loyalty, serve as the covenant marker, standing in for
circumcision and all that eventually accompanied that particular
rite.
No comments:
Post a Comment